Note: This is a literature review
prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as
legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice of qualified
attorneys, consult your local Bar Association, not my web pages.

This has led some to shift their focus to the
moderator of a forum in which the libel occurred. The moderator’s
function may at first seem well-suited to stopping libelous
information soon after it hits the net. Consider the following,
however, to see if that is really the case:

First, remember that for a statement to be
considered libelous under the law, a number of conditions have to be
met. It must be shown that malicious intent motivated the accused
and that they knowingly made false statements or engaged in reckless
disregard for the truth. The mere falsehood of a statement is not
enough. Whether these conditions apply in a given instance can take
months for even courtroom proceedings to determine. Without some
sort of special insight, a moderator is in no position to make these
kinds of judgments on the fly.

Secondly, moderators are no more likely to have
the financial resources to cover damages than the libeler
themselves. If one can’t get blood from a turnip, going after
another turnip doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The laws that apply to Internet communications
are still in the developmental stages in some cases. It remains for
the legislators, judges and juries in the courtrooms of the world to
construct a legal framework on which to build upon in the years
ahead.

Challenging the Defamers

Whenever someone’s reputation has been damaged
by individuals on the Internet, attorneys say that the first step is
to allow the offender to retract and mitigate the damage.